May Switch To 2 Rail from 3 Rail - Need Help!

TrainGuyMcGee posted:

To all,

I got into the 3 rail hobby about 2 years ago.  Since then, I've invested a considerable  amount of money into the start up equipment costs (hardware, transformers, track etc...) and now own about 60 pieces of rolling stock (mostly MTH Premier Line), 2 Lionel Legacy Diesels, 2 MTH Premier Line diesels and a Sunset 3rd Rail Steamer. 

Unfortunately, after 2 years, the deafening noise of the 3 rail trains is getting to be too much.  The noise they generate (even at low speeds) makes the trains more of a nuisance to my family than anything.  I recently saw a 2 rail setup at a train show and was really impressed by how quiet it was.  So I thought, why not convert from 3 rail to 2 rail?

Hear me out.....2 years is nothing!!!! I payed attention to the 2 rail awakening early on as well and could not be happier with that decision....Right now it feels like you have a lot, but in reality you may not.... besides IMO it's better to have a few really great models than a bunch of crappy Lionel stuff

I realize this will cost some money but I think in the long run, it will be worth it.  On that note, I have some questions:

1)  Generally speaking, are 2-Rail (O Scale) trains that much quieter than thier 3 rail cousins?  I suspect so as I believe it's the "roller" style pickup that generates most of the noise with the 3 rail trains and to some extent, the large flanges on the wheels.  I tend to run larger consists (20 + pieces of rolling stock) so even they generate quite a bit of noise by themselves.

Yes!!!! Two Rail is the best!!!! Much more quite because there is less friction... like a real train! Those pizza cutter wheels ugh... cant look at those gee!

2) Can I use all of my MTH equipment (Transformer, TIU, DCS controller etc..) with a 2-rail setup without any performance degradation?  Will I still have all of the same functionality?  If so, this would obviously save me  a ton of money.

My advice is get rid of the MTH DCS system and invest in a HQ DCC station... I have owned the ESU Ecos for many years and I love it!!! There are many others out there. MTH engines run on DCC, but by getting a DCC station you can buy Atlas, Sunset or even install your own decoders!!! Nothing beats that!!

3)  Also, If I make the switch, will Lionel Legacy engines run on 2-rail with MTH's command and control systems?

No, but who cares Lionel sucks... I call them PEZ dispensers

4)  The rolling stock I use is mostly MTH Premier Line and they look really easy to convert - Just replace the wheel sets with MTH's insulated variety.  How about the locomotives? I have a decent understanding of electronics and don't mind taking the engines apart.  How difficult are they to convert to 2 rail?

MTH rolling stock is easily converted... Engines are a different story, but you'll see that in time MTH engnes start to look funny... they lack the finesse of Sunset and even Atlas' engines.... So my advice is get rid of the MTH engines and buy some Atlas or Sunset....

5)  Can I run the engines just as fast on 2 rail track?  The track looks so much smaller and the first thing I thought about was man, how do the trains stay on those tiny rails?  Also, do the trains derail more frequently on 2 rail?

They can go fast, it depends on your track work.... bad track work derails anything....

Thanks in advance for any and all input.

A few examples of Atlas and Sunset engines that don't break the bank and with a little work look FANTASTIC!

Atlas trainman dash 8

Sunset Diesels

Disclaimer: I'm a 3-railer.  My opinion: the added noise from the center rail roller is negligible compared to other factors.

-Are you using the built-in sound systems?  Turn them off!  Try running your trains at slower, prototypical speeds.  That will GREATLY reduce the noise from all sources.

-What kind of track are you using?  Any of the "train set" track systems with a plastic base will be very noisy, I don't personally endorse them.  Many say that solid rail is quieter.  Atlas O makes 3-rail track with solid rail (if you can find it!)  Atlas also makes 2-rail track, which might be even harder to obtain.

-What kind of roadbed do you have under the track?  How is the track attached to the roadbed and/or to the platform?  Screws through the roadbed conduct sound and vibration.

-How is your platform constructed?  Do you have a sound-deadening layer such as Homasote or foam insulation between the track and the plywood base?  Are there long, unsupported spans that act like a sounding board??

-Some 2-rail freight cars have plastic wheels.  Some 3-rail freight cars also have plastic wheels (which i don't personally happen to like.)  I like the sound of metal wheels and I think the track stays cleaner.

-Some drive systems (gears, motors, etc. ) are inherently noisier than others.  Many 2- and 3-rail trains have similar drive systems.  Personally I find die-cast locos quieter than brass.  Both are available in 2- and 3-rail so the only difference is the roller.  As battery technology improves, some folks are removing the roller and using on-board battery power, with remote control direct to the loco.  I don't personally think this approach is ready for prime time, but you should be aware of it.

-What are the acoustics of your room?  Hard, smooth walls?  Ceiling tile / unfinished ceiling?

If the noise is what bothers you, see above.  Remember also that 2-rail O-scale is still a compromise.  The rails are still a scale 60" apart (which is wider than the prototype of 56.5")  If you really want the track gauge to be proportionally correct, your options are Proto-48 (track gauge of 1.177" and very narrow wheel tread, demanding careful trackwork); or Q-scale (17/64" to the foot on 1.25" track.)

The main reason to switch would be if you're put off by the unrealistic appearance of the tall profile rail, and of course the center rail.  I like trains and railroad operation.  I'm really picky about a smooth and reliable loco mechanism.  I like "train scapes" and want my trains to operate in an environment that conveys a sense of purpose.  But Plasticville building kits and ground foam are about the limit of my modelling skill, so the center rail doesn't bother me.  It's a highly personal decision, so do whatever makes you happy!

What Ted says:

Quiet trackwork is the key.  The quietest track I ever heard (didn't hear?) was Milt Sorensen's.  He used wood roadbed glued to a rubber outdoor carpet - I suspect such carpet is a thing of the past - and that carpet was glued to his layout.  Maybe old wet suits, cut into strips . . .   Also, ballast can transmit noise to plywood, so if you glue ballast to your roadbed, figure out a way to gap the sound deadening layer.  I hand lay most of my tracks, and even on Celotex, I get noise.  One stretch has plastic Atlas ties, and is on Celotex, but no plywood underneath.  Dead quiet!

But 2-rail is so much more satisfying if you like the looks of realistic track.

I think ingenuity and some of the above examples would reduce noise.  As odd as it appears to me,  O scale offers a much better choice of different and varied prototype models than three rail, which often, to me, seems to replicate toy history.  Not cheaply, though, for scale!  And this in spite of the larger population of three than two railers.  The solution: HO, which has the variety, but its own problems. O and HO scale will demand better modeling skills, and O scale, track that can't just be assembled by pushing in pins and a lockon.  It is a choice of priorities.  

If noise is your only issue, find a method to lay your track to deaden noise - it might be a lot cheaper.

But if you want fixed pilots and more prototypical looking track and switches without the center rail, then think about switching. 

As mentioned above bad trackwork - either 2 or 3 rail (or HO) results in derailments - good trackwork results in reliable running.   That said, 2 rail requires a little more attention to getting trackwork without kinks or bumps that cause problems.    many of these issues are ignored by 3 rail trains with large falnges.    

The fixed pilots on locos do make them look so much better.    Smaller closer to scale couplers such as Kadee, make the cars look a lot better too.

Finally any control system has to be used, but you have to get the recievers installed into 2 rail locos.   I have heard that MTH in particular and possible Lionel do not sell separate loco recievers for their systems, so to get one you have to buy one of their locos.  I don't whether this is an urban legend or true.    I do know with DCC,  you buy any receiver from any mfg and use it with any DCC compliant control system.   

Converting locos is much harder than converting rolling stock.    If the locos are big favorites, you may want to go that route, but if it is easier to get a 2 rail model of the same loco, it might save you some effort.    Diesel models with the older "china block" drives that do not have a removable bottom plate on the gearbox are particularly hard to convert.     If the bottom plate is removable, you can switch axles and install pickups.   If not  you have to pull wheels and gears and then reinstall.     Steamers area their own ball of wax with the rods and what not and drivers have to quartered.    If  you don't have the tools and know how to quarter the drivers - it won't work.     New axles should be quartered but you still have to deal with removing and reinstalling all the rods.

Not sure if it is possible, I think it is, so you may need to do some noodleing.  Leave the track work you have as is.  Get a two rail loco and run it in the same rails.  Isolate the wiring so there are no shorts and run a 2 rail engine. See if it you get the results you want.

Edmund Schwartzel 060518 posted:

Not sure if it is possible, I think it is, so you may need to do some noodleing.  Leave the track work you have as is.  Get a two rail loco and run it in the same rails.  Isolate the wiring so there are no shorts and run a 2 rail engine. See if it you get the results you want.

I think this is good advice to start. I suspect it is your track base. I run three rail scale  and rc two rail.

Three rail can be quiet.

Ron H posted:

Three rail can be quiet.

Wow, that's impressive; what's your secret? 

Mark in Oregon

Two rail curves, in most cases, have to be twice as large.   While O72 works well for 3 rail.   Two rail would start, for small locomotives, at O100 or larger.  You would need more space for two rail curves, though some have done two rail switching layouts, on smaller spaces.  IMO.  Mike CT. 

Mike CT posted:

Two rail curves, in most cases, have to be twice as large.   While O72 works well for 3 rail.   Two rail would start, for small locomotives, at O100 or larger.  You would need more space for two rail curves, though some have done two rail switching layouts, on smaller spaces.  IMO.  Mike CT. 

I disagree and I think this kind of advice is what keeps a lot of people from trying 2R.

I have done the following actual min. radius testing over the years:

36"r - OMI Heavy Mikado, MTH H-10 2-8-0, Joe F. Converted K-Line 4-6-4 (24"r with blind center drivers), All Diesels (Atlas, MTH, 3rd Rail) up to modern 6 axles (not tested DD40 etc...),  Golden Gate Depot 80' passenger cars

27"r - Atlas, 3rd Rail, and MTH F units, Geeps

24"r - Atlas SW switchers, MTH 19th century 2-8-0, MTH USRA 0-6-0, MTH K4 4-6-2, MTH 64' passenger cars

18"r - MTH 0-4-0

Obviously models look better on broader curves, but I can verify they will negotiate these curves depending on what length couplers you use.

You are both correct.  A scale model suitably butchered (small cylinder block, no tailbeam, long drawbar, blind drivers, etc) will negotiate the same radius with or without a center rail.

If you want a more scale appearance, track radius goes up.  Center rail simply has nothing to do with that, and deep flanges have very little to do with it.  And as MTH is showing, you can keep the big flanges if they make you happy, and still yank the center rail.

jonnyspeed posted:

Mike CT posted:

Two rail curves, in most cases, have to be twice as large.   While O72 works well for 3 rail.   Two rail would start, for small locomotives, at O100 or larger.  You would need more space for two rail curves, though some have done two rail switching layouts, on smaller spaces.  IMO.  Mike CT. 

I disagree and I think this kind of advice is what keeps a lot of people from trying 2R.

I have done the following actual min. radius testing over the years:

36"r - OMI Heavy Mikado, MTH H-10 2-8-0, Joe F. Converted K-Line 4-6-4 (24"r with blind center drivers), All Diesels (Atlas, MTH, 3rd Rail) up to modern 6 axles (not tested DD40 etc...),  Golden Gate Depot 80' passenger cars

27"r - Atlas, 3rd Rail, and MTH F units, Geeps

24"r - Atlas SW switchers, MTH 19th century 2-8-0, MTH USRA 0-6-0, MTH K4 4-6-2, MTH 64' passenger cars

18"r - MTH 0-4-0

Obviously models look better on broader curves, but I can verify they will negotiate these curves depending on what length couplers you use.

Quick note:  Two rail uses radius measurements, 3rail, for some reason, uses diameters.   

36"r equates to O72  etc.   Good description, of what works on curves above.    

Lots of the usual mythology and diverse personal beliefs/opinions as per usual when questions of this ilk get posted here. 

This is nothing to jump into w/o doing a little research and reading.

Suggest that the OP just go and visit some layouts in his area, talk those people and get a more 1st hand direct input / response to his questions.  Maybe back-track that layout that he saw at the show and talk directly with those folks since he saw there what he liked.

Space requirements are totally dependent upon what the desired objective of the layout might be for the individual.  There are additional variables in play there as well.

Not to deter the OP from going 2 rail, ( 2 rail is cool) ....let’s see some pics of the layout and see if we all can point out the issues as to why he has so much noise....I run a good sized 3 rail layout and mine is virtually silent (if I want it to be) .......again, two rail is really cool, but it seems like a lot of work only to have the same result....noise....some pics would yield the best diagnosis............Pat

harmonyards posted:

Not to deter the OP from going 2 rail, ( 2 rail is cool) ....let’s see some pics of the layout and see if we all can point out the issues as to why he has so much noise....I run a good sized 3 rail layout and mine is virtually silent (if I want it to be) .......again, two rail is really cool, but it seems like a lot of work only to have the same result....noise....some pics would yield the best diagnosis............Pat

Understanding how sound is propagated tends to solve this issue; again, some mythology will be encountered in route to the solution.

TrainGuyMcGee posted:

To all,

..

1)  Generally speaking, are 2-Rail (O Scale) trains that much quieter than thier 3 rail cousins?  I suspect so as I believe it's the "roller" style pickup that generates most of the noise with the 3 rail trains and to some extent, the large flanges on the wheels.  I tend to run larger consists (20 + pieces of rolling stock) so even they generate quite a bit of noise by themselves.

2) Can I use all of my MTH equipment (Transformer, TIU, DCS controller etc..) with a 2-rail setup without any performance degradation?  Will I still have all of the same functionality?  If so, this would obviously save me  a ton of money.

3)  Also, If I make the switch, will Lionel Legacy engines run on 2-rail with MTH's command and control systems?

4)  The rolling stock I use is mostly MTH Premier Line and they look really easy to convert - Just replace the wheel sets with MTH's insulated variety.  How about the locomotives? I have a decent understanding of electronics and don't mind taking the engines apart.  How difficult are they to convert to 2 rail?

5)  Can I run the engines just as fast on 2 rail track?  The track looks so much smaller and the first thing I thought about was man, how do the trains stay on those tiny rails?  Also, do the trains derail more frequently on 2 rail?

Thanks in advance for any and all input.

 

1. It's not really the number of rails involved. It's the rail type (solid vs. hollow) and how it's mounted to the roadbed/benchwork. "Traditional" methods have long entailed slapping down sheets of plywood and screwing track down to it. This turns the layout into one giant resonator of sound. "Cookie Cutter" roadbed is much quieter even if the track is screwed down. A layer of Homasote or sound board between the track and the underlying benchwork cuts down on the vibration. Solid rail quiets things down even more; smaller solid rail more still. So if you switched from tubular "round-top" traditional 3-rail track (metal ties) to Gargraves (hollow rail, wood ties) it would be quieter; Atlas 3-rail (solid code 215 rail with plastic ties) is quieter still; Atlas 2-rail track (solid code 148 with plastic ties) with or without a third rail added would be even quieter. In any of these scenarios, open grid (cookie cutter) bench work would yield quieter operation. Scenery should be done with carved foam as opposed to hard shell.
2. The number of rails makes no difference with respect to the electrical power source and command system you use. You just have different wiring issues involved as 2-rail layouts require extra handling of polarity on wyes, turntables, some crossings, some turnouts, and reversing loops. Many modern MTH Premier proto-2 and proto-3 locomotives can switch between 3-rail and 2-rail operation (proto-2 engines are polarity sensitive as to picking up the DCS signal). The discussion on these would require a lot of time and space, but if you e-mail me off list I can fill you in.
3. Lionel Legacy equipment will NOT run on 2-rail, but that doesn't foreclose the use of TMCC in a 2-rail context. You can convert 2-rail locomotives to run under TMCC but they will require an AC voltage source, so I don't view that as the most practical path because it's an all-or-nothing proposition with your 2-rail locomotives.
4. Converting MTH locomotives is a tricky proposition. The ones with hi-rail wheels and the Proto 3/2 option (switch between 2-rail and 3-rail) will run on 2-rail, but the hi-rail treads and deep flanges will have issues with turnouts and crossings. I've run hi-rail MTH locomotives on 2-rail code 148 track without the flanges hitting the ties, but they don't like turnouts. I've been buying my MTH locomotives with scale wheels since 2009.
5. Curves of similar radius should yield similar results if the track is securely mounted and properly laid (no kinks and twists). However, FAST=BAD/SLOW=GOOD -- slower trains allow the focus to be on the trains AND the scene through which they pass. We train the kids at AGHR (OK, we brainwash them) to run at more realistic speeds. Running faster than about 25MPH is very rare, even for passenger trains as we run multiple trains on each mainline. The big thing to watch, though, if moving to scale wheels is that 36" radius (O-72) is where your curves typically start; 48" or 60" is much better (O-96/O-120, respectively) in both appearance and operation. That said, I have the following MTH scale-wheel locomotives in my collection that have all successfully run on 36" radius:
   • C44-9W
   • AC4400W
   • C40-9W
   • ES44
   • SD70ACe
   • U25B
   • GP35
   • GP38-2
   • UP Big Boy (Yes it works, but looks silly) Keep in mind it's a 3-rail build with 2-rail wheels.
   • ATSF 4-6-4 Hudson (Blue Goose and Non-streamlined)

I've always liked the look of 2-rail track, but when I returned to the hobby, going 2-rail wasn't practical. My investment in 3-rail equipment requires me to retain 3-rail capability, but all of my designing is as if I was building a 2-rail layout (wider curves, larger turnouts). I run at a 3-rail club (including a lot of scale-wheeled equipment) and it's pretty reliable, but does find bad spots in the track which we quickly correct.

Hope this helps some.

The third rail pickup on hollow third rail makes the most noise,    Speed comes in second.

Volume turned down to about 20%.  I take off all unnecessary third rail pickups and use Delrin wheels on most freight cars, also add a little weight.                                                                                                                                                          

...I do not like noise !!

What I do works for me. 

Clem

Thanks all for the input.  Regarding the noise my layout makes, I have a pretty good idea of what it is. 

When I built my shelf layout a couple of years ago, I opted to use MDF instead of plywood.  My shelf is 9 feet above the ground so safety was of course, at the forefront of the design process and the MDF is less likely to warp (which would cause derailments etc..).

The track I decided to use for my layout was Atlas (solid rail).  IMHO, their track was the "quietest" out there and it looks really nice too.  But when I installed the track, I opted to screw the track down for stability and safety purposes. I knew that when I did this, the screws would essentially transmit the vibrations straight down to the MDF boards.  This is probably the primary source of the noise being generated.

I did use a layer of Woodland Scenics O scale track roll underneath to help dampen the noise.  But, as noted above, the screws obviously go right through that into the MDF and thus, negate the noise dampening benefit of it. 

I could try to loosen the screws a bit.  If I do this, they may not carry as much vibration down to the MDF.  But even then, I believe that the 3 rail track in general is just louder.

Some other notes about my preferences:

* I typically run my trains at 60 to 70 scale MPH.  I know this is pretty fast, but I don't get any enjoyment out of them running at 5 scale MPH, so slowing them down isn't really a practical option for me.

* I also run around 15 to 20 pieces of rolling stock.  I know, I can reduce that number, but again, I wouldn't find that enjoyable.

* Currently, my shelf layout is just a single loop with 0-72 curves.  If I made the switch, I could substitute with 36r curves or maybe even 42r curves.  I can't see myself running anything O on curves smaller than that.  I just don't like the way it looks with the tighter curves.

And again, thanks all for the input/advice.

How about ballasting your track and once the glue has hardened remove the screws? When I was in a club this is they they did it (but with nails if I remember correctly) and once the nails were gone the trains ran pretty quietly. 

Rubber ballast?  What is MDF?

Started in 3 rail but been 2 rail last 40 years.  I have two MTH 3 rail to 2 rail conversion.  Even with the scale rails, they are noiser than my 2 rail Atlas F3 or Sunset FT.  Sunset is quiter than Atlas, but it is close.  In general, noise isnt an issue for my equi[ment.  I run across foam baesed and homosote and wood and can barely detech a difference.  I usually run about 25 MPH which 3 railers might consider slow.  Someone pointed out that 2 years invested in 3 rail is minimal...I agree.  I also suggest going with DCC...many more choices.  I am thinking it would be best to liquidate the balk of the three rail and pick up 2 rail as you can.  Prices on used ) scale wpuld barely justify modifying your three rail stuff.   MTH 2 rail wheel sets ae an option but can get pricy.  Look around and ypu can probabaly do better.  Good luck

I'm going to make a suggestion about screws, I had a shelf layout on 1" x 10" x 12' sections. I first cut up some indoor/outdoor carpet ( you know the type with rubber backing ) I then took my screws and more or less painted them with liquid electrical tape. ( home depot/lowes will carry it. ) My shelf was about 8' up in the air, and yes I could hear it but as a whole it was a lot quieter. I'm getting ready to build a new layout ( I've moved since then) and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to go about it. I want to use O gauge track as I have so much of it. I may use gargraves with wooden ties. I do have a lot of that also but I only have 4 switches and no motors for that. I have O-31, O-42, O-54, and O-72 in both. I do believe I will use indoor outdoor carpet as a base though. I'm not really looking for the perfection layout where you make grass and road ways. I also put strips of carpet on all the frame work before the plywood goes down. 

Good discussion, thanks to all who participated.  

I gave some thought to this last night and realized a picture is worth a thousand words. Some opinions vary, but this should simplify reducing track noise. Remember, solid rail is quieter than hollow rail as hollow rail acts as a resonator, so Gargraves and especially "toy train" track will make more noise. Glued ballast can hold the track in place but the gluing process (water, etc) can permeate the sound board unless it's pre-sealed against moisture. Sound travels better/faster/farther through dense media, so the key is to isolate the vibrations using less dense media.

I'm currently building with Homasote over plywood, then a foam roadbed, and finally Gargraves track and Ross Switches.  I've seen a similar combination and providing you don't run at warp speed, it can be very quiet.

Don't forget under the layout, adding something simple like curtains around to block sound from below will make a significant difference in the sound level.

AGHRMatt posted:

Sound travels better/faster/farther through dense media, so the key is to isolate the vibrations using less dense media.

 

It's also useful to eliminate vibrations; everything that's loose is a sound propagation device.

One reason I used a lot of staples into the cross-members of the benchwork from the plywood.  There's nothing that can vibrate there, and that made a significant difference in just rapping on the plywood before it was secured.  Similarly, the Homasote is well secured to the plywood, about 600 screws later, it's all down.

I have a good size three level 2 rail RR and an long eye level 3 rail recent addition just for the fun of it. 

Same construction method, same environment,  same wood, same Homosote. 

In my world, Two rail is much quieter.  Three rail is more forgiving. 

(note: I must say I do run my three rail on the slow side.  The sound was fun as a  kid but at this stage life I find it unbearable to run at speed for more than a minute or so).

Some  folks say; Two rail is more exacting.  Three rail can be more fun.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Brandywine River Museum in Chester County PA during the Christmas season , you will get to see a approx. 30' X 75'  siamesed combination 3 rail and 2 rail professionally built layout running all day long.

That visit may help you choose.  I really like having both worlds in my man cave.  I am in the process of doubling my three rail effort on a subterranean level.  There is just something so nostalgic with 3 rail.

I say it is all good.

TrainGuyMcGee posted:

Thanks all for the input.  Regarding the noise my layout makes, I have a pretty good idea of what it is. 

When I built my shelf layout a couple of years ago, I opted to use MDF instead of plywood.  My shelf is 9 feet above the ground so safety was of course, at the forefront of the design process and the MDF is less likely to warp (which would cause derailments etc..).

The track I decided to use for my layout was Atlas (solid rail).  IMHO, their track was the "quietest" out there and it looks really nice too.  But when I installed the track, I opted to screw the track down for stability and safety purposes. I knew that when I did this, the screws would essentially transmit the vibrations straight down to the MDF boards.  This is probably the primary source of the noise being generated.

I did use a layer of Woodland Scenics O scale track roll underneath to help dampen the noise.  But, as noted above, the screws obviously go right through that into the MDF and thus, negate the noise dampening benefit of it. 

I could try to loosen the screws a bit.  If I do this, they may not carry as much vibration down to the MDF.  

 

I would strongly suggest that you loosen the screws before you try anything else.  I have  installed quite a bit of Atlas track and one of the things I like about is the way it connects together and stays together.  If you used the Atlas screws, you will notice the the screw has a smaller than the screw hole.  If you put the screws in so that they are about a fingernail thickness shy of touching the ties, it will keep the track in place but not transmit the sound.

Good luck with your choice,

Don

I'm guessing screws into the Homasote will not be as noisy as running them all the way into the plywood.

DGJones, I think that's going to be my first step (and cheapest).  I did torque the screws down upon track installation so I know the screws are definately transmitting the vibrations right into the MDF.  I'll try loosening the screws a bit and see if that helps.

Stay tuned for an update.

None of the previous posts indicate HOW noisy.  I have separate two rail and three rail layouts on the same tables.  The 3 rail uses Atlas track, and the two rail uses MicroScale Engineering track.  I measured the noise level of the same size freight train on each track.  The difference was 3dB.  This doesn't sound like much of a difference, but since dB is measured using a log scale,, every 3dB is about twice the noise energy, but NOT double the sound intensity to a human ear.  The 3 rail sounds like a bucket of bolts when compared with 2 rail.  I think that the wider wheel treads, much larger flanges, and engine pickup rollers are the culprits.

On a 2 rail train, the train is quieter, the cars couple much closer together and look more prototypical.  If someone (anyone?) would offer a three rail turnout (I use Atlas) that can accommodate two rail equipment, I would standardize on only two rail cars for both layouts.  As info, I also ran the same size 2 rail freight train on my 3 rail layout, and it was over 2 dB quieter, and indication to me that the 3 rail sintered iron wheelsets originate most of the noise, with the engine's pickup rollers adding the rest...

Hudson5432 posted:

...  If someone (anyone?) would offer a three rail turnout (I use Atlas) that can accommodate two rail equipment, I would standardize on only two rail cars for both layouts.  As info, I also ran the same size 2 rail freight train on my 3 rail layout, and it was over 2 dB quieter, and indication to me that the 3 rail sintered iron wheelsets originate most of the noise, with the engine's pickup rollers adding the rest...

There have been several "which track to use" threads over the years. My recommendation has been Atlas 3-rail track with Ross turnouts. At the club, I run quite a bit of scale-wheeled equipment and I rarely get derailment issues with Atlas, MTH 2-rail and Weaver trucks (Intermountain wheels) UNLESS there's a gauge problem. Code 145 wheels will have issues if something is out of gauge. If you use the Ross #4 and 11-degree (#5) turnouts things should work pretty well. Atlas track and basic Ross turnouts are also insulated, so you can wire for 2-rail operation if you'd like.

MTH ScaleTrax, though a little harder to get, is also 2-rail compatible. The layout I'm working on right now will be using ScaleTrax. It's also quiet because it has smaller scale-profiles Code 190 rail and smaller ties. On the turnouts, you might want to make sure to insulate the frog from the closure and stock rails just in case something shifts.

Hope this helps.

One problem using 2 rail cars on 3 rail Atlas track and turnouts I did not mention.  I have found that, with the older Atlas 2 rail cars and using Kadee couplers, the couplers will lead the cars and their trucks through a diverging route but the wheel sets will not follow and will foul the guide rail, and this is due to excess lateral play of the wheel sets in the truck frames.  On the worst offenders, I measured 3/16" of wheel lateral play.  On the MTH 2 rail equipment that I run, the wheel set lateral play is only a few mm, and they do pretty well.  All cars, at times, have problems with the Atlas frogs.  My success rate running an entire 2 rail train through Atlas #7-1/2 turnouts on a diverging route is about 30%....not good enough.

While an investigation to determine what dimensions, if anything, work to make both 2 rail and 3 rail equipment compatible in this regard, it seems to me that on the 3R Premium equipment a better wheel material, and a more prototypical tread profile and flange size would reduce noise considerably.  Everyone would benefit from the elimination of pizza cutter flanges and fast angle wheels on this equipment.  My opinion.

Years ago, I bought an MTH Premier 0-8-0 steam engine (PS2) with the scale wheel option. It has smaller flange depth and wheel tread but with pickup rollers to run on 3-rail track. A while back I tried to run it (for the first time) and it derailed on the curved route of an Atlas O-54 switch which the version with 3-rail wheels negotiates without difficulty. The 3-rail version with standard wheels is advertised as O-31. Just thought I would mention it.

MELGAR

I had an MTH Mikado with scale wheels a few years back, it ran great on Atlas track, and derailed on about half of the Atlas switches.  It also derailed on almost every Fastrack curve from O72 and down.  I sold it and decided I'd stick with the pizza cutter wheels that are so much more forgiving.

Hudson5432 posted:

 As info, I also ran the same size 2 rail freight train on my 3 rail layout, and it was over 2 dB quieter, and indication to me that the 3 rail sintered iron wheelsets originate most of the noise, with the engine's pickup rollers adding the rest...

I tend to agree with the above highlighted statement; like (probably) most of us, I like metal wheels better, but I do think they are the biggest noise-making culprit...

Mark in Oregon